Ending the War: Time for the Dems to Play Hardball

Taking a page from America's retailers, President Bush is getting a jump on the coming battle over Iraq war funding. On Monday, he added an additional $45.9 billion in supplemental war funding to the $150.5 billion he'd already requested, and then turned up the heat on Congress to sign off on the $196.4 billion before heading home for the holidays. Only 60 more browbeating days until Christmas!

And you have to give Bush credit. Despite record-low approval ratings, he's unabashedly playing -- and winning -- the PR game on the war. By incrementally adding to his funding request, he made his ongoing plundering of our treasury to pursue his disastrous Iraq policy seem relatively modest. The headlines all focused on the $46 billion he's just added to the tab -- not the $196 billion he's really after.

And while his language about "supporting the troops," and "providing our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done" is well past its sell-by date, the Democrats have yet to reframe the funding debate. So Bush replays his patriotic greatest hits while the blood of our soldiers continues to flow -- in the process making our country not more, but less, safe.

The president was feeling so cocky he even pulled out the "s" word -- "succeed" -- that had been in cold storage for a while. "Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught in the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C.," he said. "[Congress] ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed." Whatever that means in Iraq these days.

The Democrats meanwhile remain divided and confounded on how to stand up to the president on Iraq. House invertebrates like Steny Hoyer, who foolishly think ducking for cover is a winning '08 strategy, are urging a cautious approach, suggesting that any hardball stop-the-war efforts will leave red state Dems vulnerable to attacks for undermining the troops.

Senate leaders, including Carl Levin, are also treading lightly. Levin's latest gambit: put Bush on the installment plan, giving him only part of the money and forcing him to come asking for more in June, after the next Congressionally mandated report from Gen. Petraeus (September redux?). Levin's plan would also aim for a complete withdrawal from Iraq within nine months -- but this would only be a goal, not a date certain requirement.

Hey, why accomplish today what you can put off until tomorrow -- or June?

And some Democrats just seem resigned to the notion that their options are limited. As Henry Waxman told Politico: "If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes." It's what David Sirota calls the "Innocent Bystander Fable" -- the idea that since Democrats don't have the 60 votes needed to end Senate debate or the 66 votes needed to override a Bush veto, the war in Iraq is out of their hands.

But the truth is, Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war -- if they are willing to use the power given them by the Constitution to block the supplemental funding bill unless it includes a deadline for bringing the troops home. As Norm Ornstein told me: "Whatever the White House sends to the House is constitutionally merely a suggestion." The prerogative to bring a funding bill to the floor rests entirely with the majority -- which, in case Democrats have forgotten, is theirs. As for the Senate, Democrats there would only have to find 41 votes to block the supplemental funding bill.

I'm sorry for this refresher in Congressional Power 101, but Democratic leaders seem to need it. The White House cannot force Congress to spend money. Period. The end. The imperial presidency has not gone that far. At least not yet. So Democrats, who have the public behind them, need to be unequivocal that they are simply not going to continue to fund the war unless and until the president agrees to change course and set a date certain for ending it.

They need to make it clear that they are not pulling the plug on the troops -- indeed, they will be authorizing bridge funding for armored vehicles and veterans' health benefits, among other essential expenses, when they take up the annual defense appropriations bill in December. And they can make it clear that they will give the president and the Pentagon all the money they need to safely and responsibly bring the troops home.

It's a battle of wills. A test of leadership. And a contest to frame the debate in the public's mind.

The president took a preemptive shot across the bow on Monday, playing the funding-equals-troop-support card, and placing the ball squarely in Congress' court. Democrats can't afford to sit back on their heels and wait until next year to take on the president (or worse yet, have a replay of the 2007 supplemental funding fight and cave to the president's phony "before the holidays" demands).

They need to begin reframing the funding fight now -- hammering home the message that it's the president's obstinacy that is jeopardizing the well-being of our troops and the safety of our country.

This is not the time for caution and playing it safe. This is the time to force the president's hand.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[swkidder]

The electorate has repeatedly asked the Democratic "leadership" to honor the oath they took to the Constitution and act as though they understood the message in the 2006 "tsunami."
Left, center and values voters alike were saying that it’s O.K. to get angry. Grown-ups get angry - but about things that matter in the world they're about to leave their children. They get angry about Imperial Wars of Aggression against sovereign nations that kill millions of women and children – while making the likes of KBR & Blackwater filthy rich. They get angry over Global Warming – arguably as much about the survival of the human species as about the health of the planet. They get angry about depriving the defenseless of access to food, shelter and healthcare. They even get angry about theoretical things like attacks on the Constitution and Civil Liberties.
They don't get angry about whether or not someone was rude to the President or General Petraeus. I wonder if the Democratic "leadership" will ever look the Administration, the Right Wing Attack Squad, and the Media in the eye and say, "I'm not going to ask Pete Stark to apologize because he was right. You are an obscenity and you deserve to be called one ... right out loud. The war in Iraq is an obscenity, and General Petraeus deserves our scorn for taking his honorable career and pimping for the Bush administration when he's too smart and capable not to know he's lying. I'm not going to ask MoveOn.org to apologize for calling a spade a spade."
The electorate grows angrier day by day. What we meant to do - what we thought we'd done in 2006 when we gave the Democratic Party its majority - was elect grown-ups who were mad about the same things we were and would actually work for change. Instead they cave to Bush Administration - on everything - at the least sign of pressure.
Apologies to John Conyers who’s done some great work - but if you assume that you don’t have the votes you’ll never find out if that's true.

[moderationsmuse]

You sound like a very martyr. But I remember how Feminists came to Paula Jones support when she tried to get a little justice from then President Clinton.

Dems are great at legislating morality, but not so great at the implementing.

Paula Jones was one individual going up against the great white hope. And all the feminists and other illiberals really didn't give a fig that Clinton had harassed her in the work place.

But it came back and bit him. And evenually the ghost of Clinton past will haunt Hillary also.

A kind of poetic justice in that, I think.

Yours is not the party of the "little guy." Your party runs over the little guy with its steamroller.

[flyingcabeza]

FYI there museman, Richard Mellon Scaife funded the lawsuit of Paula Jones. Do you know who that ass hole is?

[theFinAddict]

It's clear that the Democratic leadership doesn't really WANT to do something or they would do exactly what Arianna is suggesting. This has been bantered about for a year or more and they keep avoiding the issue.

So, how are they really different than the GOP, who are willfully killing our soldiers for a power play? It's the same thing re: impeachemnt--if they truly cared they'd do it, but they're playing politics for party gain.

Actions speak loudest.

[CarmanK]

I agree Arianna. Steny Hoyer is my Congressman and I really thought he had more guts and savy than he has demonstrated in a leadership position. The Dems have got to stop making excuses, stop the "bill passing frenzy" that most Americans can't keep up with. They need to settle down, pare down the number of Bills and consentrate on demanding accountability on Iraq. Men and women are dying, that is the problem with putting off til June 08 any real decisions on Iraq.
If I were the Dems, I would pay a whole lot of attention to the UN resolution on Iraq and the time frame for withdrawal of troops. It could lead to so ammunition to take the troops out sooner than later.

[johnnydajogger]

I would not even bother with any "deadline for bringing the troops home" contingency. I dont trust Bush or any of them. Block all spending now and let Bush figure out how to end the war ASAP.

[Ckathryn68]

I would like to see the Democratic leadership (and perhaps some of the Republican moderates too) go on local tv in all districs where legislators are not supporting the will of the American people and just plain call them out! I suspect that local tv & radio would love to have name politicians do long distance live interviews and would show them. I think if every day people were reminded to call their reps that we could see groundswell. Then we can put King George back in the role of President and out of the role of King/Emperor.

[Raster]

Calling on Dems to play hardball? The phrase Democrats + hardball creates an oxymoron. Arianna must be attempting a little pull-our-legs, TGIF humor.

[poiniard]

The Democrats must form the argument as: the Republicans want to continue funding the occupation of Iraq. We will no longer fund Geroge Bush's occupation, We will spend the money to get the troops out of an occupation the Iraqs don't want.

[sharparrow]

Well, if the Democrats don't pass any funding bills, the President will continue to spend. (The Secretary of the Treasury is, after all, a Presidential appointment.) Congress can appeal to the Supreme Court, which will say, "if you don't like it, impeach." You won't be able to get 60 votes in the Senate to impeach, so the only impact will be to establish that Congress can safely be ignored. Good rhetoric, bad politics.

[serenegeezer]

I'm really not sure but I think that Sharparrow may be wrong here. In effect, what he/she is saying is that the President has functionally unfettered power to spend as much as he/she wants on whatever he/she chooses to spend it.

If there are no other impediments to this concept prior to it reaching the Supreme Court (and I believe there likely are), the Supremes (to follow Sharparrow's thinking) would have to rule in very open defiance of the Constitution.

[gappytoofcondi]

So sick of the MSM portraying any cutoff of funding to be a sign of being soft on terror. Simple fact is bringing our troops home would strengthen our military by re-tooling the machinery and resting the troops. Our homeland could be more secure by being able to use our reserves to protect our borders, help out on disasters, etc.

The Dems would not suffer- isn't the current approval rating for congress at 11%? Seriously, how much lower could it go? In fact, cutting off funding would be seen as the change the voters mandated in November, 2006.

GWB has a 24% approval rating that is well earned. His numbers have been in steady decline for some time now. People have seen the real man and do not like what they see. Why is the Democaratic majority congress allowing him to bully them into unpopular funding? I'll let the Senate slide due to a razor thin majority with Lieberman voting like a Republican. The only explanation seems to be that they are letting the war get even worse, then use that for the upcoming elections to insure a landslide victory, including the WH. Sorry, but using our troops' lives as political fodder is morally reprehensible.

In reality, the Dems marks would go up if they started to show some conjones. Pelosi and Reed are taking heat for not living up to their election promises. It is high time to put an end to a war that can't be won by military means alone and stop wasting $9bil a month.

[serenegeezer]

The Democrats in Congress cannot not be aware that Congress' approval rating is at 11%. Moreover, they cannot not be aware that roughly 2 out of 3 Americans want this war ended. Therefore, logic would seem to point to motives other than political for their avoidance of de-funding the war which, as Arianna points out can be accomplished by inaction.

[geobushono]

Right on Arrianna!!
Don't apologize for refreshing the minds of Congress about Their power.
They need to be taken to the woodshed.

America has been whipped in Iraq and the World knows it....Putin has taken off the gloves and told dumbya to STFU.
When our Dems fund this war, they are setting themselves up for the CORRECT charge of owning it.
I'd rather see our Democratic Party fending off charges of impeaching bush for spite, rather than have the Election be about who controlled war spending for the 2 years before the Election.

[MrMurder]

The extra money is for war with Iran.

If Dems don't attach arbitrary qualifiers to this it will lead to the next war.

Bush's only way to get in front of Plame is war with another country...

[Tonto2]

Its way past time to start playing hardball with Bush and the stakes are way too high to let Bush continue his disaster just for political points. I agree there is some merit in keeping the Iraq fiasco Bush’s fiasco, but we are not living in a vacuum. Continuing to let Bush have his way has a price for all in terms of lives and treasure and we cannot afford either.

Furthermore, if the dems were to cut off the funding, I don’t think they would have anything to worry about in terms of the next election. Sure, Bush will scream that the failure is on the dems heads, but only the clueless will be fooled and they’ll vote republican in the next election anyway.

Nancy Pelosi needs to decide whether she wants to be the House Speaker or Miss Manners. The name of the place is the House of Representatives not the House of Euphemisms. R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S as in “of the people”.

When she took over as speaker, I had high hopes and tons of respect for her . . . . no longer.

First there was the genocide issue she raised with the Turks, which was a result of something that happened 92 years ago, that is beyond irresponsible . . . its beyond stupid!

Second, her criticism of Pete Stark’s comment on the S-chip vote also calls her judgment into question. You don’t embarrass your own people and lend support to the rethuglicans, especially when your people are right.

I think it’s time for Ms. Pelosi to resign and let a grown-up have the job.

[FrankFurter]

Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is CRAZY.

We no longer have a representative democracy.
It is gone, has been for a while now.

The politicians who sold themselves out know this and they also know we cannot stop them from using the system which they have rigged in their favor as they please.

Witness the hubris of our politico's. They should fear us, but they don't.

They mock us and lie to our face, then stick us with the bill for the largest transference of wealth in the history of the USA.

Voting can no longer be considered as participating in anything other than a great polling of the general populace.

He who controls the voting machines controls the outcome of the election.

Cheney and the NeoConner's have have been positioning this moment in time for well over 30 years.

The ONLY way we'll ever see another functional representative democracy here in the USA is by
1) outlaw lobbying for a minimum of two election cycles.
2) Have 100% public financed campaigns.
3) Force the television broadcast companies to provide equal time for all candidates and
4) The people must once again take to the streets and this time if necessary, physically throw the bums out.

Let's call it a Neo Tea Party.

Good luck and good night America.

[trinity333]

FrankFurter -- you got it, dude. You are right.

Also, you need to add to your list: HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS.

Toss those corrupt computerized Trojan Horse voting machines over the ship like the Boston Tea Party, and bring back hand counted paper ballots in see-through plastic boxes, with the count shown live on public access TV and the results posted on the precinct wall BEFORE the ballots ever leave the room. PERIOD!!!!

If you can't see your vote being counted, you might as well go home and watch The Price is Right.

[IzaakSzerman]

"We no longer have a representative democracy.
It is gone, has been for a while now."

My senators are John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, and my representative is John Culbertson.

In the many times that I have communicated with these people, the only responses that I have received are that they are "100% in support of the president".

Summary: We have no representation!

[booknutcase]

Arianna, I could not agree with you more. If our Senators and Congressmen do their jobs and vote the hearts and minds of their constituents, they will NOT continue to fund this war unless the President agrees to start bringing troops home immediately. We have to protect our soldiers while they are under attack, and remove them safely. But this effort has to start immediately. We also have to send the message to the Iraqi government, such as it is, that American citizens will not tolerate the loss of American soldiers in this chaotic civil war.

[flyingcabeza]

"IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE"- Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, Speaker of the House of Representatives. This is the equivalent of saying, "THE CONSTITUTION IS OFF THE TABLE." Hasn't it dawned on everyone that you no longer matter here? There is only ONE THING you can do to show that you matter...quit spending your money. Why else would Georgie boy, standing on top of the rubble of the World Trade Center, tell you to go shopping? When consumers quit consuming, they become relevant. Just because they can't quit spending, doesn't mean we can't and it's our only effective means. It's simple. Don't buy a turkey this Thanksgiving, eat something else. Don't buy any Christmas gifts, give something you already have in your house to people. Then watch the panic on Wall Street and in Washiington, D.C. Corporations cannot run without consumers just as your car can't run without oil and gas.

[Progress08]

Or, "WE DON'T CARE ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY"!